So I recently got the Rokinon 8mm f2.8 fisheye lens and it's a pretty fun lens to use. However, now I'm wondering if I should get a UWA lens instead since most of the time I would much rather have little to no distortion with the image. Think it's a good idea to get the 10-18mm lens instead? The 8mm is very sharp and at a very great price. At over $800 is the 10-18mm worth getting?

I absolutely agree with Bimjo on "and". About the upcoming 12 mm i don't think that it's an real comparison. The widest angle on a 10-18 is 10mm. From 10 mm to 12 mm doesn't seem much in angle (only 2 mm) but in practice this is a shift in your view of 20% which is quite a lot. In practice this means you will have a 20 % wider view with the 10-18mm compared to the 12 mm.

I do think that the the upcoming 12mm will have superb quality but in my opinion the 10-18 covers the range off the 12 mm and not the other way around. I'm really interested in the upcoming 12 mm but it will not replace my 10-18.

The difference is even bigger compared to an 8 mm Fisheye that you already own. Because distortion is an quality which is accepted on an Fisheye you have a full 180 angle view with your Rokinon. It has at least a 25 % wider angle than the 10-18 and a whopping 50 % more wider view angle than the upcoming 12 mm.

Whether it's worth the 800 USD investment is a personal question. I'm quite happy with mine and i use it more often than i expected. I think that the upcoming 12 mm wil be even more expensive and only testing will learn us whether it's worth and extra investment. There are also some users on this forum which mention the 10-20 being less sharp at edges (quality control at Sony? ). Maybe it is wise to check on that while you're still in the store.

Yeah I've also looked into the CV 12mm lens and it's around the same price as the 10-18mm but since the 10-18mm is a bit wider and has AF/OSS it might be a better purchase. Though the pictures I've seen with the 12mm has been really impressive.

The Rokinon is a great lens for the money and even though it's a fun lens to play with I don't see me using it as much as I thought I would so that's why I am looking into an UWA lens. I'm going to test the 10-18mm today to see how I like it =]

Whether it's worth the 800 USD investment is a personal question. I'm quite happy with mine and i use it more often than i expected. I think that the upcoming 12 mm wil be even more expensive and only testing will learn us whether it's worth and extra investment.

Click to expand...

No testing needed. It's a whole stop faster while not being much more expensive, and I bet it won't be worse optically. So yeah, better value for some, worse value for others, but I don't think optical quality should be guessed to be worse than the Sony zoom here.

Yeah I've also looked into the CV 12mm lens and it's around the same price as the 10-18mm but since the 10-18mm is a bit wider and has AF/OSS it might be a better purchase. Though the pictures I've seen with the 12mm has been really impressive.

The Rokinon is a great lens for the money and even though it's a fun lens to play with I don't see me using it as much as I thought I would so that's why I am looking into an UWA lens. I'm going to test the 10-18mm today to see how I like it =]

Click to expand...

Why considering the CV 12mm over the Zeiss 12mm? The latter is much faster, features AF, and should optically be much better than the really not impressive Voigtländer lens. That there are great pictures shot on the latter is due to good photographers using the lens, not due to an optically good lens.

As for the Rokinon - it's a great fisheye lens for its price, and I would also buy either both or what you prefer. Completely different lenses for different compositions.

Hopefully Zeiss lenses should be out soon, so we can see some reviews. Both Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses are produced by Cosina. Also at 12mm f/5.6, you don't need af, nearly everything is in focus. CV is not the sharpest lens but not bad either... It is much smaller then any wide angle lens that I have and had and has very low distortion. I get more punchier colors with CV 12mm compared to Sony 16mm, maybe it is due to the lens coating/wider angle factor...

At the same time, 10-18 will beat both with OSS and wider angle if you are looking for that. I don't know the distortions eg most probably camera corrected. If you buy it, check it for some of the qc issues discussed. I finally gave up last summer before my vacation and bought 7-14mm for my OMD and sensor stabilization helps, eg in my case a local cave shooting or travels where you don't have time/permit for a tripod set up. See my hand held shot at 1/3 sec:

Exactly, at 12mm f/5.6 you don't need AF. But this also renders it completely useless for low-light photography or any type of landscapes where you see stars or the moon ... The Sony 16mm is also not a good lens, so comparing it to the CV 12mm is probably not a good idea. The size? Well, as far as I have seen pictures of it, the Zeiss 12mm is not that much bigger, yet it is two stops faster.

OSS? I've got a steadicam for video - and a brighter aperture for phtogoraphy with the 12mm 2.8. Sure, some people prefer using OSS on a steadicam too, but at this wide angles, it doesn't really matter. AND: It's f/4. Still useless for the kind of photography I do.

As for your handheld shot - quite good for 1/3 of a second. But at this location, why wasn't it possible to set up your tripod?

The AstroTracs are nice for some, but they are not a substitute for a faster lens (you save so much time by using a faster lens) and second not ideal for landscapes that actually show land. Sure you can blend the lend and the sky together in Photoshop (in fact, most of the time you have to do this without such a setup too), but as it's not necessary when using a modern camera (with relatively kow sensor heat and noise at ISO 1600 - 3200) you can save so much weight when traveling.

I use a NEX setup to nit break my back in the years to come, and Inwon't change that by using accessories that don't actually change the end result. For deep space photography, of course, a star tracker is necessary.

I was looking around and found Rokinon 14mm f2.8 lens for Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Alpha cameras and it costs around $350-$400 for the lens. Perhaps I can get this and an adapter to use on the NEX camera. I played with the 10-18mm lens today and it's very nice but I don't know if I want to spend $800+ In the end, I figured I like UWA rather than fisheye. Think the Rokinon 14mm w/ adapter is a good way to go?

Well I've ordered the 14mm for Canon EOS mount along with an adapter. I'll play around with it and see how I like it and if it's wide enough. I'm pretty sure it's wide enough but after playing with the 8mm I kinda wish for wider lenses now. I might just keep the 8mm too for when I need it, since it's a pretty good price lens too!

Rokinon/Smayan 8mm seem to produce excellent result along with panini de-fishing.
Hugin has panini embedded and commercial tool Fisheye Hemi also seems to produce excellent result with Samyan 8mm over NEX. Just do a search at dpreview with keyword Samyang 8mm NEX. Lot of comparison samples with 10-18mm is also posted there.

Links in this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.